Nessa wrote:My point was that there is a double standard. Some parents want religion out of schools cos as a parent they want the right to bring up their kids as they see fit. They do not want the school teaching their kids things that go against their own beliefs.

But in the next breath it seems the rights of the parents should be forsaken in favour of the school becoming the 'parent' when it comes to sex ed e.g condoms given out willy nilly without the parents being aware or having a say.

*Sigh* As I've said twice already, the school isn't stopping any parent from teaching their kids anything. And no school is handing out condoms willy nilly as you say. This is just stupid.

The school doesnt 'prepare' the kids for sex at all. That's part of the whole problem.

Without the evidence for your claim why should I believe you? I'm not that gullible.

You are getting taught about sex according to how someone else sees it. Purely a physical act by some.

And you may think the school stepping in and helping do what the parents may fail to do as helping but you are just really exchanging one problem for a whole set of others

Okay, that's enough. Have a good day.

.

There are sex ed programmes that do hand out condoms freely but whether its one being handed out or several is not really the point. The point is should they be able to give out condoms in schools without parents knowledge or consent?

I never said the school is stopping parents from educating their children. But that logic is the same that could be said for bible in schools. They arent stopping the parents from teaching their kids at home either.And somehow that doesnt cut it with alot of parents, at least in NZ. Parents want the right to be able to chose what kids are being taught on personal matters such as religion and sex.

When in such cold terms as: "teach little Mary about erections, ejaculations, and condoms. Trouble is, far too few parents do." I don't think I'm the only one who's say such a cold and sterile view is gross. I have a higher view of the design of sex than merely something centred all upon a men's sexual urges with erections and ejaculations.

As far as condoms, why no mention of abstinence until marriage as an option? "Oh, not based on reality," I hear the response. Well, actually, it is for many people. And, I see it as much healthier for the intended design of marriage. It also creates a healthier marriage psychology if you will. Debatable, according to your own ideologies you want everyone to embrace, versus myself and what -- but I'd be for research and papers being presented too.

What is this higher view of sex you ask? In Christianity, it is believed that God designed man and woman to come together and be united – "and they become one ('echad') flesh." (Gen 2:24) This oneness is the same as found in the Jewish Shema, "Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One ('echad')." (Deut. 6:4)

The obvious intended design for man and women to be together in Jewish and Christian thought is unavoidable. This forms the basis of a family wherein children can be safely raised. It is clear that natural law also supports this as the obvious and most natural design of humanity.

Christian and Humanist thought however are clearly at odds as to the true purpose of sex and one's sexuality. Without God, there is no true design. One should just pursue what gives them the most happiness and pleasure.

Audacity wrote:

I don't believe those stats are representative at all.

Okay, what stats do you believe?

"How to know when you are ready to have sex" is also an extremely biassed question that wreaks of Humanism.

First of all, it isn't a question, but a description of the topic. Secondly, how would you have worded it?

If it's not being taught as part of biology and reproduction or what-have-you.Present different positions on sex and its purpose. Heck have Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Humanist sex education professionals each give their own talk.

Interestingly, UK is one of the most sexually liberated. Condoms play second fiddle because they ruin the experience. People are happy to have sex without condoms and treat any STDs they receive as they arrive. They're happy to run the gauntlet of HIV and what-have-you. It really doesn't seem "sex ed" classes touting a "safe sex" message work there.

Audacity wrote:

Sex education in schools is often more than mere education, but rather sexualises young children all the more.

Please give us the source for your claim here. And, what would suggest as an alternative to sex ed, ignorance?

But if taught in schools, then biology classes. Noone, governments included, have any right to sexualise (not merely educate) our young children.

Again, with the almost inevitable sexualization. But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by sexualization; that the girls become whores and the boys become satyrs, or worse yet, rapists?

Family Watch International report that they conducted a campaign at the UN to stop UNESCO from distributing this original draft of their paper. After a number of UN Member States complained, UNESCO replaced their original publication with the less controversial: International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education.

Despite the original paper being a draft, UNESCO being the respected international education organisation saw it circulate around the world. Many international websites, including state education sites in Australia and even businesses like Ansell condoms, referenced and linked to it as a guide for teachers, students and schools.

To inspire you to read UNESCO's original publication for yourself, here are just some highlights:

Children ages 5-8 should be taught about masturbation and that bodies can feel good when touched.

Children ages 9-12 should be taught about giving and receiving sexual pleasure, condom use, orgasms and about "safe" abortion services

Children ages 12-15 should be taught about different sexual orientations, that men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure with a partner of the same or opposite sex, that everyone is responsible for their own and their partner's sexual pleasure, access to safe abortion.

Whether or not we agree on all the different moral issues involved, it is important to understand that there is more being undermined here than Christian values.

I do not know of any caring parent who would be happy for teachers and governments to act in their place when it comes to imparting moral values into their children or educating (sexualising?) their kids on topics like sex.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Audacity wrote:It could very well free them from the responsibility of raising an unplanned child.

So can education which doesn't emphasize on having sex as a kid...

And you think this would be adequate? I don't. And it obviously wouldn't be adequate if kids asked for condoms. As I pointed out, over a quarter million teenage girls wound up pregnant in 2013.

What kind of religious subject are you thinking of. Passing out the Book of Mormon for their edification? or how about the beneficial aspects of the Koran? How about Atheism as a viable alternative? Or were you thinking more along the lines of Christian salvation and how to achieve it?

It doesn't necessarily have to be about Christian salvation only. All/any religions would fit. However, it shouldn't be dumbed down to being a "learn by heart, repeat and forget" subject. A mix of philosophy, theology(any/all), atheism as well, of course...

So you think schools should teach am overview course on religion in general, taking in Taoism, Hinduism, native American religious beliefs, Scientology, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Okay, but I fail to see the value. I think the time could be better spent on other subjects.

Last edited by Audacity on Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kurieuo wrote:When in such cold terms as: "teach little Mary about erections, ejaculations, and condoms. Trouble is, far too few parents do." I don't think I'm the only one who's say such a cold and sterile view is gross. I have a higher view of the design of sex than merely something centred all upon a men's sexual urges with erections and ejaculations.

I purposely used those to words to emphasize what the parents would have to talk about; subjects that may likely turn them off from the necessities of good sex education. And from your response here I suspect you'd be just one of those parents.

As far as condoms, why no mention of abstinence until marriage as an option? "Oh, not based on reality," I hear the response.

Because the OP was about "birth control products," and the title of the thread here specifically mentions condoms.

Audacity wrote:

I don't believe those stats are representative at all.

Okay, what stats do you believe?

"How to know when you are ready to have sex" is also an extremely biassed question that wreaks of Humanism.

First of all, it isn't a question, but a description of the topic. Secondly, how would you have worded it?

If it's not being taught as part of biology and reproduction or what-have-you.Present different positions on sex and its purpose. Heck have Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Humanist sex education professionals each give their own talk.

Interestingly, UK is one of the most sexually liberated. Condoms play second fiddle because they ruin the experience. People are happy to have sex without condoms and treat any STDs they receive as they arrive. They're happy to run the gauntlet of HIV and what-have-you. It really doesn't seem "sex ed" classes touting a "safe sex" message work there.

Audacity wrote:

Sex education in schools is often more than mere education, but rather sexualises young children all the more.

Please give us the source for your claim here. And, what would suggest as an alternative to sex ed, ignorance?

But if taught in schools, then biology classes. Noone, governments included, have any right to sexualise (not merely educate) our young children.

Again, with the almost inevitable sexualization. But maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by sexualization; that the girls become whores and the boys become satyrs, or worse yet, rapists?

Family Watch International report that they conducted a campaign at the UN to stop UNESCO from distributing this original draft of their paper. After a number of UN Member States complained, UNESCO replaced their original publication with the less controversial: International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education.

Despite the original paper being a draft, UNESCO being the respected international education organisation saw it circulate around the world. Many international websites, including state education sites in Australia and even businesses like Ansell condoms, referenced and linked to it as a guide for teachers, students and schools.

To inspire you to read UNESCO's original publication for yourself, here are just some highlights:

Children ages 5-8 should be taught about masturbation and that bodies can feel good when touched.

Children ages 9-12 should be taught about giving and receiving sexual pleasure, condom use, orgasms and about "safe" abortion services

Children ages 12-15 should be taught about different sexual orientations, that men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure with a partner of the same or opposite sex, that everyone is responsible for their own and their partner's sexual pleasure, access to safe abortion.

Whether or not we agree on all the different moral issues involved, it is important to understand that there is more being undermined here than Christian values.

I do not know of any caring parent who would be happy for teachers and governments to act in their place when it comes to imparting moral values into their children or educating (sexualising?) their kids on topics like sex.

Okay, you don't have any stats, you haven't shown how you would reword the description of the topic, and you don't care to tell me what you mean by "sexualization. Instead you show us what a UNESCO publication says. In short, you choose to ignore my questions, and what you do say isn't germane, so I'm not interested. Have a good day.

And if you don't see how teaching 5 year old children masturbation is sexualising them, or teaching 9 years olds how to give and receive sexual pleasure, and 12 year olds different sexual positions with both straight and homosexual sex is self-evidently "sexualisation" then I'm seriously disgusted.

Need there be further discussion? I don't think so. We're worlds apart.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

It seems the topic has drifted from handing out condoms in high school which I don't think should happen to having sexual education.Regardless of one UNESCO draft paper that never went into circulation I don't believe schools would ever teach masturbation to 5 year old children. Or teach 9 year olds how to give sexual pleasure or receive it. I know of no school that teaches 12 year olds different sexual positions or would opt to do so. A draft paper from a UN think tank on cultural and social issues isn't at all reflecting what is actually being taught in schools.Whilst I don't think condoms or birth control should be handed out in schools, sex ed should be a part of the curriculum. We live in a society that is not majority Christian, many youngsters these days are moving away from getting married at all. That is the reality. We can't just stick our fingers in our ears and pull the rug over our eyes and say abstain till marriage because a God you don't believe in thinks it's best. Or Christians who believe in a God you don't believe in think it best.It doesn't work that way, we can't live in ideologies even if those ideologies are best served because it's just not realistic. The fact of the matter is majority of 17-18 year olds have had sex. These teens need to be using condoms and the girls should be on birth control. That is how you stop STD's and unwanted pregnancy. By trying to stop sex ed and preaching abstinence only is a recipe for disaster. Abstinence should be part of the teaching in sex ed, but not the only avenue. Education isn't a one trick pony, a well thought out, age appropriate sex education program is in my opinion the way to go. I personally know of a number of older teen girls who are on the pill, some for issues with their period and others their parents decided it was a safe option for their older teen girls. By far the vast majority are still virgins. So I don't think putting teenage girls on the pill advocates sexual promiscuity.

melanie wrote:It seems the topic has drifted from handing out condoms in high school which I don't think should happen to having sexual education.Regardless of one UNESCO draft paper that never went into circulation I don't believe schools would ever teach masturbation to 5 year old children. Or teach 9 year olds how to give sexual pleasure or receive it. I know of no school that teaches 12 year olds different sexual positions or would opt to do so. A draft paper from a UN think tank on cultural and social issues isn't at all reflecting what is actually being taught in schools.Whilst I don't think condoms or birth control should be handed out in schools, sex ed should be a part of the curriculum. We live in a society that is not majority Christian, many youngsters these days are moving away from getting married at all. That is the reality. We can't just stick our fingers in our ears and pull the rug over our eyes and say abstain till marriage because a God you don't believe in thinks it's best. Or Christians who believe in a God you don't believe in think it best.It doesn't work that way, we can't live in ideologies even if those ideologies are best served because it's just not realistic. The fact of the matter is majority of 17-18 year olds have had sex. These teens need to be using condoms and the girls should be on birth control. That is how you stop STD's and unwanted pregnancy. By trying to stop sex ed and preaching abstinence only is a recipe for disaster. Abstinence should be part of the teaching in sex ed, but not the only avenue. Education isn't a one trick pony, a well thought out, age appropriate sex education program is in my opinion the way to go. I personally know of a number of older teen girls who are on the pill, some for issues with their period and others their parents decided it was a safe option for their older teen girls. By far the vast majority are still virgins. So I don't think putting teenage girls on the pill advocates sexual promiscuity.

Moreover! the UNESCO conference guidelines was not addressing sex education, but sexuality education. Hence the title:

But isn't this just like an arch conservative, anti-equal rights, anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-homosexuality organization (Family Watch International) to jump on such a paper and purposely misinterpret it so as to use it as a weapon against sex education in schools;* relying on the reader to not pick up on the difference.

To repeat. The UNESCO paper IS NOT about sex education BUT sexuality education. And if anyone thinks the two are the same please see your English teacher after school.

AND, I know of no public school that's teaching sexuality education. Do you?

* "The publication, The International Guidelines on Sexuality Education is intended to drive sex education programs taught to children in schools worldwide and is being promoted under the guise of the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, coercive or abusive sexual activity, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AID"source

melanie wrote:It seems the topic has drifted from handing out condoms in high school which I don't think should happen to having sexual education.Regardless of one UNESCO draft paper that never went into circulation I don't believe schools would ever teach masturbation to 5 year old children. Or teach 9 year olds how to give sexual pleasure or receive it. I know of no school that teaches 12 year olds different sexual positions or would opt to do so. A draft paper from a UN think tank on cultural and social issues isn't at all reflecting what is actually being taught in schools.

Mel, the International Baccalaureate is in many private schools in Australia. IBO is UNESCO, and the IB curriculum, PYP and the like, is essentially project that got wings and lift off. It is from my research into that, I know about this paper. If it were just one paper.

You think this is exaggerating?This "draft" paper was in fact released around the world, and only three years ago, linked to from the Department of Education and Health sites in different states around Australia. From memory, it was link to from Qld, WA, Vic Education/Health sites in Australia. It still could be linked to from here and there. On some glowing references endorsing it as "the international standard".

And, yes, this is a push button issue for me. I had to remove my own daughter from the school she started within at great expense. And care not I to get into it because it's quite depressing. Let's say, I'm now paying double to ensure she and my kids receive a safe education. I had to put my money whether my mouth is AND I know what I'm talking about Mel including the philosophies involved.

Wonder if you have children Audacity.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Your first link here is nothing more than a reproduction of "International Guidelines on Sexuality Education" already linked to, which I don't see making any reference to "sexuality education" being defined as "who and when they use it." Neither did I find this definition in your second linked source.

As for the difference.

Sexuality: the expression of the sex drive.

Sexuality: being sexual. And in the case of the linked guideline, particularly in light of STDs. The guideline also delves into sexual skills and how to "promote their acquisition" (see part 2), something sex education doesn't touch.

Sexuality education focuses almost solely on behavioral issues; and doesn't cover any of the basic differences between males and females and how they develop: puberty and maturation, plus conception, reproduction, and personal hygiene. These areas of knowledge are taken for granted. In sex education they're not.

From the linked "International Guidelines on Sexuality Education."

"The primary goal of sexuality education is that children and young people are equipped with the knowledge, skills and values to make responsible choices about their sexual and social relationships in a world affected by HIV and AIDS. "

Note that these all relate to issues of behavior: "choices about their sexual and social relationships."

You know, butterflies aren't really "flies" made from "butter".Words and phrases often carry distinct developed meanings than what one would logically deduce from the words alone. While it makes sense to treat "sex education" and "sexuality education" as two separate things, they're not really and often used interchangably. It is largely a European way of referring to sex education.

Wikipedia sees no difference and uses them synonymously. It you clicked my link to "sexuality education" you will notice for example it redirects to a page on "sex education". And yes, the actual UNESCO guide released, if you read over it actually unpacks sexuality education as pretty much the same as sex education in many places. Here's a quote:

We have a choice to make: leave children to find their own way through the clouds of partial information,misinformation and outright exploitation that they will find from media, the Internet, peers and the unscrupulous, or instead face up to the challenge of providing clear, well informed, and scientifically-grounded sexuality education based in the universal values of respect and human rights. Comprehensive sexuality education can radically shift the trajectory of the epidemic, and young people are clear in their demand for more – and better – sexuality education, services and resources to meet their prevention needs.

Questions: What is "sexuality" services? Services that allow you to express your sex drive? What of the science if not how males and females develop and reproduce?

A clear rationale for the introduction of sexuality education can be developed on the basis of evidence from the local/national situation and needs assessments. This should include local data on HIV, other STIs and teenage pregnancy, sexual behaviour patterns of young people, including those thought to be most vulnerable, together with studies on specific actors associated with HIV and other STI risk and vulnerability. Ideally, this will include both quantitativeand qualitative information; sex and gender-specific data regarding the age and experience of sexual initiation; partnership dynamics, including the number of sexual partners and age differences; rape, coercion or exploitation; duration and concurrency of partnerships; use of condoms and contraception; and use of available health services.

While sexuality education is how Europeans primarily refer to it, where "sex education" is mentioned it is often used interchangably. Take this quote from Sexuality Education in Europe:

Quality and availability of sexuality educationAccording to a report from The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy: “There is neither a general overall policy, nor a unified practice, regarding sex education for adolescents in Hungary”. (The Center for Reproductive Law andPolicy, 2000) Provision of sexuality education is considered inadequate by most observers: “It is fair to say that the teaching of Sexuality Education is somewhat sporadic and much depends on the conscientiousness and openness of the teachers. A more organised framework would be indispensable in this area” (IHF-HR, 2003).

Consider this from the same document:

The focus of sexuality education depends very much on the subject in which it is taught: biological aspects are the focus within Biology lessons, and relationship issues within Religion or Ethics lessons. In the first to fourth grades pupils cover topics of family life that include healthy lifestyle and puberty.

One reason for perhaps defining such education as "Sexuality Education" in Europe rather than simply "Sex Education" (other than language in different countries) is because sex carries less emphasis upon the act of sex -- that they're trying to redefine in terms society will find more acceptable. It's not about sex, but loving relationships and understanding one's own sexuality, what their private parts are, so they know others can't just touch them. It is actually more encompassing than just birds and the bees talks on "sex" is the idea. And yet, when it is more encompassing on relationships and the like, it is sometimes referred to as "relationships and sexuality education".

You know, I really, really think children should know about many things in a frank and open manner. My own children never believed in Santa Claus, and people often comment that we're cruel -- but they actually enjoyed being in on the joke with other kids whose parents lie to them. My kids know about the realities of the world, often according to their level of questioning -- that some people want to "marry" same sex, they know about abortion, they understand "girly boys" in Thailand, they know about their private parts, they know that rubbing can feel good (I mean it's quite natural right). But, it's often along side their development, my asking questions to determine what they have/haven't picked up on, their asking questions and sometimes they've caught wind of this or that TV program, or their friends said something as typically happens in the societies we live within. Open and honest according to their understanding is how I do it. BUT, Government should never usurp parents to do it. Especially parents like myself who passionately give a damn. That, is my beef.

And you know, I'd see red if I found out my school tried teaching my kid masturbation, normalising homosexuality (no surprise we disagree there), promotion of abortion services which take little human lives in the most barbaric ways (again no surprise if you look at my signature). Seriously the principal and teachers would have a visit, and it wouldn't be for a peaceful talk if I caught wind.

No matter the social acceptance that may develop, many ideas that do get taught sexualise children and by that I mean a type of grooming for sex, and I don't take that lightly. Not with my kids. And often endorsed is teaching them about behaviour I believe to be psychologically harmful and/or abhorrently wrong; but it's normalised. I'm to protect my kids and family, including from social evils. If you have kids, you'll realise how personal and affronting it is, I mean picture a forced "young earth creation" education on your kids to get a sense for sensitivities.

What would be better is if government, health and education services, developed programmes for parents. Sought to teach parents how to talk to the children, and had a discussion with parents about what they feel is important to discuss and why. And then, parents take control of their own children. If there are school run programmes, parents should have to opt in, so those who don't care about educating their kids or feel too awkward, can give their approval for government run programmes.

THAT, is the correct approach, the proper chain of command if you will. Through the parents, not around them. Governments and a lot of sex education or sexual education attempts to go around the parents, because they know there will be a clash of ideologies and the brainwashing-like influences that can and does happen across many controversial topics.

However much we disagree, I think parents who do not have honest and open talks with their kids are setting their children up for a fall. However, to enforce teaching upon kids without parental involvement or consent, broad strokes all parents as complete fools and is a denial of family. It is better left for Communist countries where elite superiors try to define everything for the whole community. Perhaps you'd like to live in North Korea or China? No? Didn't think so.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Kurieuo wrote:What would be better is if government, health and education services, developed programmes for parents. Sought to teach parents how to talk to the children, and had a discussion with parents about what they feel is important to discuss and why. And then, parents take control of their own children. If there are school run programmes, parents should have to opt in, so those who don't care about educating their kids or feel too awkward, can give their approval for government run programmes.

Which would be nice; however, with at least half the parents going through life with an IQ below average I wouldn't count on a lot of cooperation. I'm afraid that parental cooperation would be a hit and miss affair. Sex education in public schools would at least insure that all the kids got the information they deserve, not just those whose parents took their responsibilities seriously.

THAT, is the correct approach, the proper chain of command if you will. Through the parents, not around them. Governments and a lot of sex education or sexual education attempts to go around the parents, because they know there will be a clash of ideologies and the brainwashing-like influences that can and does happen across many controversial topics.

I don't get this "go around parents." How is giving sex ed classes getting around the parents? The parents can tell their kids about sex whenever and however they want. And exactly what kind of ideologies and "brainwashing" are you talking about? Is there something in public school sex ed classes that shouldn't be taught? You know why formal education is mandatory? It's because we can't rely on parents to teach what society has deemed important to children. And like it or not, our society has deemed certain sex ed subjects to be important, and important to know by certain ages.

In any case, I'm still curious as to what sex ed subjects parents object to.

However much we disagree, I think parents who do not have honest and open talks with their kids are setting their children up for a fall. However, to enforce teaching upon kids without parental involvement or consent, broad strokes all parents as complete fools and is a denial of family.

As I pointed out, parents don't have unilateral control over their children. Our laws demand that all children are schooled in a certain way and in certain subjects. Don't like it, then move elsewhere. Parents do not have consensual privileges where it comes to the education of their children. And to think this may reek of communism is to misunderstand both child welfare and communism.

Kurieuo wrote:What would be better is if government, health and education services, developed programmes for parents. Sought to teach parents how to talk to the children, and had a discussion with parents about what they feel is important to discuss and why. And then, parents take control of their own children. If there are school run programmes, parents should have to opt in, so those who don't care about educating their kids or feel too awkward, can give their approval for government run programmes.

Which would be nice; however, with at least half the parents going through life with an IQ below average I wouldn't count on a lot of cooperation. I'm afraid that parental cooperation would be a hit and miss affair. Sex education in public schools would at least insure that all the kids got the information they deserve, not just those whose parents took their responsibilities seriously.

If IQ matters here, and 50% of parents go through life with less then below average IQ why then shouldn't the government help these parents all the more? And equally, if 50% parents couldn't understand because they have a less than average IQ, then there's also going to be difficulties teaching those 50% of students with a less than average IQ.

Audacity wrote:

THAT, is the correct approach, the proper chain of command if you will. Through the parents, not around them. Governments and a lot of sex education or sexual education attempts to go around the parents, because they know there will be a clash of ideologies and the brainwashing-like influences that can and does happen across many controversial topics.

I don't get this "go around parents." How is giving sex ed classes getting around the parents? The parents can tell their kids about sex whenever and however they want. And exactly what kind of ideologies and "brainwashing" are you talking about? Is there something in public school sex ed classes that shouldn't be taught? You know why formal education is mandatory? It's because we can't rely on parents to teach what society has deemed important to children. And like it or not, our society has deemed certain sex ed subjects to be important, and important to know by certain ages.

You do know more and more parents are home schooling due to the Government nanny mentality. There are some issues that should be kept to parents. Even parents have final say over education. If you don't like an education, there's nothing stopping parents from moving elsewhere, or doing it themselves.

Your "society has deemed" comments, even if true (despite the government and education systems often dictating to the people) are simply fallacious: argumentum ad populum. In fact, when many of these sexual education programs that teach masturbation, normalise homosexuality and abortion and even encourage sex as healthy and nothing wrong with multiple partners so long as one takes "precautions" -- some sex education progams is teaching very Humanistic values which may as well be a religion of its own.

Obviously, I don't expect you'd have much problem with this. Maybe you would if a sex ed program was developed grounded upon Judaism, Christianity, Islam or some Theistic religion. I mean, would Iranian society running a sex ed program, would you be happy to place your children in such? The Islamic Republic of Iran, a Muslim theocracy, I wonder.

Most education is neutral. Some touches upon more or less dangerous areas, very strong differences in ideologies and the like. And for all the "understanding" and "tolerance" such is meant to promote, it seems -- even your own position here -- rather dictator-like. It's going to be this way, many people are stupid and I know better, so tough!

You know, my auntie, a staunch Socialist (dare I say Communist), once told me people are stupid. Unintelligent and don't know what's good for them. So someone, or group, at the top needs to tell people how to live and guide them. Your words above with the 50% IQ thing sounds very reminiscent.

Audacity wrote:

However much we disagree, I think parents who do not have honest and open talks with their kids are setting their children up for a fall. However, to enforce teaching upon kids without parental involvement or consent, broad strokes all parents as complete fools and is a denial of family.

As I pointed out, parents don't have unilateral control over their children. Our laws demand that all children are schooled in a certain way and in certain subjects. Don't like it, then move elsewhere. Parents do not have consensual privileges where it comes to the education of their children. And to think this may reek of communism is to misunderstand both child welfare and communism.

You have a backward view. You may be willing to give up control of your kids to Government, but by natural design parents are given responsibility of their own children to be their protectors and raise them. So, even if social thinking is backwards, it is rather Governments who do not by design have consensual privileges over the education of children.

If they wish to disrespect and challenge that, then at some point, the individuals will become dissatisfied, rise up and fight back. Freud even spoke of such government and what clashes with individual freedoms.

As for if people don't like it, then in a country built upon democracy, they're entitled to stay and try influence and reform laws and government policies.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)